Andhra Pradesh government refuses to defend Centre’s changes to transgender rights law in court

Why in the News

The Andhra Pradesh government has told the Supreme Court that it will not defend the 2026 amendments to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, since it had no role in enacting them and the law’s validity is primarily a matter for the Union. The State that issues transgender identity certificates has stepped away from defending the statute it administers.

What did the 2026 amendments change?

1. What the law recognised: The 2019 Act let a person’s declaration settle their gender, following National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014). A two judge Bench based identity on self identification.
2. What the amendment did: The 2026 amendments removed the right to a self perceived gender identity and tied the definition of a transgender person to physiological characteristics.
3. The stated reason: The ground given in Parliament was that self determination would let people falsely claim a transgender identity to obtain welfare benefits.
4. The objection: Opposition members argued that removing a right the Court recognised in 2014 attacks the dignity of transgender persons. Members of the National Council for Transgender Persons resigned as protests spread.
5. The takeaway: A right that rested on a person’s declaration now rests on physical characteristics, which is why the change is being challenged in court.

What has Andhra Pradesh told the Court?

1. No independent discrimination: The State’s affidavit, filed in August, says it has taken no independent action discriminatory towards transgender persons.
2. The Union has not answered yet: The Centre is yet to respond to at least a dozen petitions challenging the law, so only the administering States are on record.
3. An ally against the Union’s law: Andhra Pradesh is governed by the Telugu Desam Party, an ally of the party leading the Union government.
4. The party backed the Bill: A Telugu Desam Party member supported the Bill in the Lok Sabha in March, citing complaints of people falsely adopting a transgender identity to beg.

How does Uttarakhand’s position differ?

1. A State defending the amendment: The Uttarakhand government has defended the 2026 amendments in the same proceedings.
2. Its factual claim: It submitted that the amended law has taken away none of the rights transgender persons held in the State, and that identification, certification and welfare continue as before.
3. Its explanation: It argued that social attitudes and the way existing services are run shape the rights and healthcare transgender persons actually get, as much as the law does.

Why does a State’s refusal matter?

1. States run the certification: The 2019 Act gives the District Magistrate power to issue the certificate of identity, so the definition’s practical meaning is set by State machinery.
2. The Court reads what States file: Where a central law is administered by States, their affidavits are the evidence of how it operates.
3. A split defence: Two States governed by allied parties have taken opposite positions on the same amendment, so the Union’s law no longer has a single State defence.

Challenges

1. Proof shifts to a physical test: A definition tied to physiological characteristics makes recognition turn on examination, which the 2019 Act was written to avoid.
2. Statute against a constitutional finding: A right traced to Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 does not fall because the statute recording it was amended.
3. Entitlements follow the certificate: Welfare access is keyed to the identity certificate, so a narrower definition narrows every scheme built on it. Eg. Garima Greh shelter homes.

Way Forward

1. Restore declaration as the basis: Parliament should make self declaration the basis of the certificate again, keeping medical procedure a matter of choice.
2. One Union affidavit on operation: The Union should file one affidavit stating how the amended definition is to be applied, so District Magistrates are not left improvising.
3. Put certification data on record: Require every State to publish applications, certificates issued and rejections each year, so the amendment’s effect is measurable.
4. Fill the council: Reconstitute the National Council for Transgender Persons with community nominees, so objections are heard before rules are framed.

Conclusion

The Court is being asked whether identity rests on a person’s own declaration or on physical characteristics. What to watch is whether other States that must administer the Act also decline to defend it.

Key numbers

1. Identity card applications in Andhra Pradesh: 3,750 (State affidavit, 2026).
2. Certificates issued: 3,233 of those applications.
3. Applications not taken forward: 403.
4. Applications still pending: 114.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Right to privacy relating to self-identity is very dear to every human being and well protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, examine the effect of the amendment in 2026, to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.”